Land: Conflict in the countryside

From Proceso, No. 684. 1 November, 1995

On Monday, October 23, several hundred campesinos conducted a
peaceful takeover of about 13 large properties in the departments
of Ahuachapan and Sonsonate. For some, the action was evidence of
the perennial problem of land in El Salvador. For others, it was
merely the manifestation of political interests whose goal is to
destabilize the "democratic process" prior to the municipal and
legislative elections of 1997.

Land as an expression of political interests

The second of the two viewpoints has been principally espoused
by legislative deputies from the ARENA party, top officials of the
Land Reform Institute (ISTA), and the director of the National
Civilian Police (PNC), Rodrigo Avila. Given the similarities among
their commentaries, one can deduce that, from the standpoint of the
Calderon Sol government, the historical problem of land is now
reduced to simply the political manipulation of "innocent"
campesinos, behind whom are the "dark" forces of the opposition and
the FMLN. In this view, the land takeovers are an isolated and
private problem which has nothing whatsoever to do with the
structural and unequal distribution of wealth and property in El
Salvador. Thus, since the incident is seen to be independent of any
historical motivation and no more than a common crime, the
proponents of this view justify the use of all legal means to
defend private property and penalize "these criminal gangs" who
flagrantly violate the Constitution.

In confirmation of the above, on October 26 a series of
amendments to the Penal and Penal Procedural Codes were passed in
an "emergency" fashion. Explicitly, articles 248 of the Penal Code
and 122 of the Penal Procedural Code were amended. The reforms are
aimed at awarding more autonomy to judges in issuing eviction
orders for usurped lands. Furthermore, the punishment imposed on
the transgressors (2-4 years of prison) will apply to all those who
propose, promote or instigate the usurpation of properties. Gloria
Salguero Gross, president of the legislature, stated: "we are ready
to pass any law which helps support legality."

With the help of MINUSAL and the Human Rights Ombudsman's
Office, the PNC evicted the campesinos on Thursday of that week. As
they left the lands, they said the "takeovers" would be repeated
constantly until the government enforced the constitutional ban on
owning over 245 hectares and distributed the excess. Furthermore,
the peaceful and "voluntary" eviction saved the campesinos from a
jail sentence or from being forcibly "dispersed."

Land as a historical problem

The media has insistently repeated that the mastermind of the
"land takeovers" is the FMLN, and that the campesino masses are
merely a means to its political ends. The media also reports
alleged campesino comments about belonging to the rank and file of
the FMLN, and emphasizes the unconstitutional nature of the
actions. This kind of reporting reflects some ideological bias
which is important to point out:

The attempt to axiomatically define campesinos as people
incapable of intelligently deciding what is best for their
interests, thus as people who can be guided and led to carry out
goals alien to their real needs.

The presumption that the land takeovers, aimed at ensuring
a just distribution under the Constitution, are a chimera presented
by outside sectors as "their" interests.

Underlying the official discourse is denial of the historical
nature of the problem at hand. If the land takeovers are merely a
reflection of FMLN political interests and not of the campesinos'
real interests, it would thus be valid to term them "usurpers" and
"criminals," and to overlook the content of their demands.

Furthermore, ignoring the statements made by the campesinos
themselves -who have clearly and accurately expressed their
demands- their detractors have tried to separate the always-latent
problem of land and its social repercussions from the takeovers to
which these problems have led. They have tried to look at the
action in an isolated way, instead of at the structural reality
which generated it, in order to detract attention from the urgent
needs of campesinos.

A press release published by the Democratic Campesino Alliance
(ADC) expressed the reasons and justifications behind the recent
actions. The ADC document set forth two ideas:

The takeovers were a product of the need to demand
enforcement of articles 104, 105 and 267 of the Constitution, which
reflect Phase II of the 1980 agrarian reform by limiting individual
ownership of land to 245 hectares. Any excess is toieties and
associations, and campesino community organizations. If the excess
is not transferred within three years and the owner is at fault,
the latter may be expropriated without prior indemnization.

Given the negligence of ISTA and the government in
enforcing these articles, and after conducting research and
identifying lands in excess of 245 hectares, the campesinos'
decision to "take over" the lands is not unconstitutional. On the
contrary, they are enforcing the Constitution.

The ADC document constitutes a rectification of statements
made by public officials. Their demand that the government enforce
the Constitution obviates the issue of the constitutionality of the
takeovers, since the actions reflect a willingness to use the
Constitution as a guide and apply its provisions. If Salguero Gross
speaks of enforcing the law, and is referring to enforcement of
constitutional principles, then it is her duty to see that the
legality of the articles mentioned by the campesinos is not
undermined by the government's reluctance to enforce them.

To pretend that the campesinos' action is not a reflection of
the perennial problem of an unequal distribution of wealth is
tantamount to denying history and forgetting that this was one of
the detonators of the civil war which swept the nation during the
last decade. The current situation cannot be taken lightly from any
point of view. To consider the positions of a sector which is
lobbying for its right to a dignified and secure lifestyle as
"criminal" means going back to the ideological polarization which
prevailed before and during the war.

The best solution would be one which seeks to overcome or
remedy the current living conditions of campesinos, and not one
which applies a nightstick to silence them. The legislative
measures passed to this end are nothing more than refined forms of
repression to address a problem which so far no one has been
able-or worse yet, has wanted- to resolve.